2016 elections - because it's never too early

[derspiess]

No, it's giving both sides what they want. Religious folks want to control what "marriage" is, while gay folks want the legal benefits that come with marriage. So, divorce the term "marriage" from the legal benefits. Give that term back to the churches (and any other group who wishes to use it) while giving the legal benefits to anyone who qualifies under Federal guidelines, ie two consenting adults wishing to legally join their finances from here on out.

Fair point, but it doesn't meet the typical definition of compromise in my mind.

It's condescending.

It's not meant to be.

[merithyn]

Fair point, but it doesn't meet the typical definition of compromise in my mind.

And what would that be?

It's not meant to be.

It is.

[Grey Fox]

Using boy towards a black man isn't meant to be condescending either & yet.

[crazy canuck]

Fair point, but it doesn't meet the typical definition of compromise in my mind.

It would probably be more useful if you used the definition of compromise that isnt unique to you.

[derspiess]

Fair point, but it doesn't meet the typical definition of compromise in my mind.

It would probably be more useful if you used the definition of compromise that isnt unique to you.

It's not.

[derspiess]

And what would that be?

"a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands."

What you're proposing is "let's scrap that originally idea and do something different".  It's sort of like a compromise IMO but not really.

It is.

Dunno why.  My female friends & co-workers never seem to take issue with it.

[Admiral Yi]

Civil unions for homofags is very much a compromise.  The sanctity of marriage qua marriage is preserved for religious types, gays get some spousal benefits.

[merithyn]

"a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands."

What you're proposing is "let's scrap that originally idea and do something different".  It's sort of like a compromise IMO but not really.

No. Both sides are conceeding something in order to reach an agreement. Conservatives are giving up the fight against allowing gays the "legitimacy" they are requesting through civil unions, and gays are giving up the use of the term "marriage". That's a compromise.

Dunno why.  My female friends & co-workers never seem to take issue with it.

Okay.

[derspiess]

No. Both sides are conceeding something in order to reach an agreement. Conservatives are giving up the fight against allowing gays the "legitimacy" they are requesting through civil unions, and gays are giving up the use of the term "marriage". That's a compromise.

How are gays giving up the term "marriage"?  They could still get 'married' in some churches.  I don't see gays giving up much of anything in the deal.

Though again, personally I think this libertarian approach has some merit.

[CountDeMoney]

And you're the only woman I know to be offended by "dear"

It's condescending.

Know your traditional gender-specific role, woman.

[Berkut]

Yes, because there simply isn't enough obstructionist douchebaggery in Washington as it is.  MOR PLZ

When you disagree with the agenda being pushed, isn't it your moral obligation to obstruct?

No? It's your moral obligation to work together toward a compromise that works for the majority of the people. That's how it's worked for two centuries, anyway.

For everything?  You should compromise on everything?

The problem certainly is not that the Republicans are unwilling to compromise on everything. It is that they are unwilling to compromise on anything.

[Admiral Yi]

The problem certainly is not that the Republicans are unwilling to compromise on everything. It is that they are unwilling to compromise on anything.

That's ridiculous.  The sequester was a compromise.  The Fiskal Klif bill was a compromise.

Basically every single budget bill since the first mid-term election has been a compromise.

[Berkut]

I cannot believe you guys fell for spiceys little trap so easily.

The issue is not about compromise or don't compromise on particular issues. I can see good reason to obstruct on specific issues.

But those "good reasons" do NOT include "Well, this is a pretty good idea/standard operation of government/nothing to fight on any policy/ideology basis. But we are going to fight it because we don't want to let the Adminstration win anything, ever. So even if it is the right thing, we will oppose anyway, because not letting Obama do ANYTHING is more important than actual governance".

It is being the opposition in good faith, with the understanding that at the end of the day the over-riding goal of those who govern is in fact to make the lives of the governed better. Ideally, that should mean that politics must take a second place position to the good of the country.

The Republicans are NOT governing in good faith. They would rather see their nation harmed than see Obama get anything accomplished. This is like those on the left who were pretty much rooting for the US to fail in Iraq rather than see Bush be right about the entire mess, except that the Republicans as a whole are doing it about everything.

[Berkut]

The problem certainly is not that the Republicans are unwilling to compromise on everything. It is that they are unwilling to compromise on anything.

That's ridiculous.  The sequester was a compromise.  The Fiskal Klif bill was a compromise.

Basically every single budget bill since the first mid-term election has been a compromise.

Bullshit. Those should never have gotten to the point they did, and they got to that point because the Republicans categorically refused to even abide by the deals they made themselves.

The fact that they didn't actually allow the baby to drown after holding its head under water until it was nearly dead doesn't make it ok.

[DontSayBanana]

I don't think you've ever said that.  You wouldn't be able to resist throwing in something snarky.

I think that's more of a character flaw than an ideological stance.

One shared by me, before anyone gets all huffy.